WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CALCUTTA
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Jyotirmoyee Nag, President; Prof. Sunil Kanti Kar, Member
KALPANA SANYAL—Complainant
versus
SUJATA BUILDERS & PROMOTERS (I) PVT. LTD.—Opp. Party
S.C. Case No. 858 of 1992—Decided on 15.3.1993
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 2(1)(g) - UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE - DELAY IN COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION - INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT - INTERPRETATION OF CLAUSE VI OF THE AGREEMENT - CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION - JURISDICTION - SECTION 12 - SUMMARY: The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against a builder for delay in completion of construction and to award interest on delayed payment. The interpretation of Clause VI of the agreement between the parties is a question of fact and the Commission's finding on this issue is final.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a housewife, booked a flat in a housing project at Picnic Gardens. However, she later decided to dispose of the plot of land at Krishnapur and procure a smaller flat in and around Calcutta. She entered into an agreement with the promoter company, Sujata Builders and Promoters Private Ltd., to purchase a 500 sq. ft. flat in their building project. The agreement provided that the company would complete the construction of the building within 24 months from the date of commencement of construction. If the delay was beyond 30 months, the company would pay interest @ 1% p.m. on all payments made by the allottee till then. If there was further delay upto 48 months, the allottees would be entitled to claim consideration money and other monies.
Finding of the Court:
The Commission found that the builder had failed to complete the construction of the building within the stipulated time and that the petitioner was entitled to interest on the delayed payment. The Commission also found that the builder had not refunded the entire consideration money to the petitioner and that she was entitled to compensation for the delay.
Issues: 1. Whether the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against a builder for delay in completion of construction? 2. Whether the interpretation of Clause VI of the agreement between the parties is a question of fact? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the delay?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against a builder for delay in completion of construction. 2. The interpretation of Clause VI of the agreement between the parties is a question of fact and the Commission's finding on this issue is final. 3. The petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment as per the terms of the agreement. 4. The petitioner is entitled to compensation for the delay as per the terms of the agreement.
Final Decision: The Commission ordered the builder to pay the petitioner the sum of Rs. 1,09,550.00/- jointly within 30 days from the date of communication of the order.
Mrs. Justice Jyotirmoyee Nag, President — Smt. Kalpana Sanyal is a Housewife, now living with her ailing husband and only unemployed son at 16, Suren Sarkar Road, Calcutta-10. The petitioner’s husband retired on the 31st January, 1982 from the employment of Central Government. As they had to vacate the Central Government Quarters the petitioner’s husband booked a flat about 800 Sq. Ft. in a housing project at Picnic Gardens. At that time she came to live with her parent’s house at Suren Sarkar Road, Calcutta with her husband and son to look after her old parents. Both her parents died, the mother died in September, 1982 and the father died on 5th March, 1990. The flat booked by her husband at Picnic Gardens was to cost more as the floor area of the basement has been included proportionately in the floor area of individual flat and also tile rate per Sq. ft. had increased. She tried to get a smaller flat which was not available. As the petitioners husband was unable to meet the expenses of the flat he asked for refund of advance money Rs. 25,000/- only which was refunded without interest. The petitioner’s mother had gifted a plot of land of about 4 cottah at Krishnapur in 1967 to enable him to get house building loan from the Government to construct a house there. But that did not materialise as he was transferred to Siliguri. Thereafter the petitioner with her husband came to Calcutta and settled for ten years at Central Government. Employees Quarters at 16/7, Dover Lane, Calcutta-29. Living at 16, Suren Sarkar Road, Calcutta, where the atmosphere was very unhealthy the petitioner and her husband decided to dispose of the plot of land at Krishnapur and procure a small flat in and around Calcutta with the money, and also with pension benefit that he would get. In 1987 a local agent contacted the petitioner and her husband and gave a proposal for the purchase of their land. Bishnupada Saha who was the Managing Director of Sujata Builders and Promoters Private Ltd. He offered them a 500 Sq. ft. flat in their building project. Swapan Kumar Bhowmick another Director of the Promoter Co. agreed to purchase the land at Krishnapur to promote the project under the banner of Bright Star Engg. Co. Ltd. situated at 117, Lenin Sarani and Pradip Kumar Bharuka the partner in their project having their office of Bhruka Industries at 117, Lenin Sarani, Calcutta. Cost of the flat was calculated at Rs. 1,35,000/- @ Rs. 217/- per sq. ft. the petitioner agreed to the proposal of Bishnu Pada Saha. A memorandum of agreement was prepared and a sum of Rs. 85,000/- was received by the promoter company being the sale proceeds of the petitioner’s land at Krishnapur for promotion of a building there. The payment of Rs. 85,000/- covered payment in full upto 4th instalment and in part of 5th instalment the money receipt No. 0166 dt. 5.12.87 was issued under the signature of Bishnu Pada Saha as Managing Director and Swapan Bhowmick as Director. An Agreement was drawn up acknowledging the instalments paid by the petitioner and her husband. In the agreement there was Clause VI where it is stated that the company expected to complete the construction of the building within 24 months from the date when the construction starts. But if the delay is beyond 30 months the company will pay interest @ 1 % p.m. on all payments made by the allottee till then. If there is further delay upto 48 months the allottees will be entitled to claim consideration money and other monies. By the end of 1988 the petitioner came to learn that Sri Bishnupada Saha had expired and that Sri Swapan Kumar Bhowmick informed them that the flat was then available @ Rs. .270/ per sq. ft. that it may go up Rs. 600/- per sq. ft. The petitioner was advised by Sri Swapan Kumar Bhowmick that they need not wait for the flat as it will be very costly. As they could not purchase the flat they asked for refund of the money, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was refunded to them by a cheque on State Bank of India
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.